Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
Romney is too much of an opportunist and too overconfident in U.S. military power to exercise restraint, and that’s especially true if he were presented with a chance to establish his foreign policy credentials and to demonstrate a clear break with his predecessor’s relatively more cautious approach. It seems very unlikely that the U.S. wouldn’t already be directly arming anti-regime forces if Romney had won the election. It is hard to imagine that Romney would have either the political courage or the inclination to refrain from direct military intervention as demands for “action” became more insistent. A Romney administration might now be preparing for a Syrian war if it hadn’t launched one already.
Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, condemned Mr. Obama on Tuesday for a “policy of paralysis” toward Syria that he said had allowed President Bashar al-Assad to “slaughter 10,000 individuals.”
...
Mr. Romney has not embraced airstrikes — in part, one of his advisers said, because Syria, unlike Libya, does not have a long, isolated highway that NATO could bomb to cut off the government’s forces. But Mr. Romney believes arming opposition groups is critical to asserting a “robust American leadership role,” said Richard Williamson, a foreign policy adviser to his campaign.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Friday that he would send U.S. troops to Syria if needed to prevent the spread of chemical weapons.
"I think we have to also be ready to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that we do not have any kind of weapon of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists and whether that requires troops, or whether that requires other actions by our friends and allies," Romney said in an interview with CBS News.
...
Can it be any more clear that Republican opposition to limited strikes in Syria is based on nothing more than political opportunism? They were all for this a year ago and now have only changed their mind simply because Obama is now for it. Dishonesty and double talk is the hallmark of the modern Republican Party. It's nice to see at least one conservative publication is still honest enough to admit it.
Maybe if O weren't President, there wouldn't have been revolutions all across Northern Africa and the Middle East to begin with. No 'Arab Spring', no Syrian situation.
Maybe he wouldn't have agitated revolutions into existence all across Northern Africa and the Middle East to begin with. No 'Arab Spring', no Syrian situation.
Yeah. He would have just put on his magic underwear and suddenly the Middle East would be a hotbed of peaceloving beatniks.
Mainly that it shows exactly where Republicans collectively were on Syria before Obama agreed with them. This highlights how they have, once again, duplicitous & disingenuously flipped a 180 just to oppose the President even though the President is supporting their own publicly stated position. If nothing else it highlights the dishonesty and untrustworthiness of anything the Republican Party says.
Can it be any more clear that Republican opposition to limited strikes in Syria is based on nothing more than political opportunism? They were all for this a year ago and now have only changed their mind simply because Obama is now for it. Dishonesty and double talk is the hallmark of the modern Republican Party. It's nice to see at least one conservative publication is still honest enough to admit it.
Is this one of those threads to make 0bama out to be just like <insert Republican here>??
I only ask because it is becoming a trend, the left refuses to be critical of 0bama, and then tries to equate 0bama to some hated Republican. As if they are satisfied if their guy is just as bad as those that the left hates and despises.
Mainly that it shows exactly where Republicans collectively were on Syria before Obama agreed with them. This highlights how they have, once again, duplicitous & disingenuously flipped a 180 just to oppose the President even though the President is supporting their own publicly stated position. If nothing else it highlights the dishonesty and untrustworthiness of anything the Republican Party says.
The Republican leadership is on board with 0bama on Syria, and seem to be okay with all things Libya too. Oh sure, they will make noise now and again, but in the end 0bama gets 90% of whatever he wants.
Well Romney isn't President so it's all speculation.
Afraid to deal with reality and that a Democratic President is pushing a war ?
No, I do believe he is, once again, pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
